It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I don't want to believe in time travel.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth
 


i understand what you mean when you say it all exists in multiple universes. but the number would be infinite. so for all intents and purposes it is free will.
i agree that everything the choice we have has already been written in infinite options. like an infinite amount of roads have been layed its our choice which path we choose to walk.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by tauristercus
Each time that one of these "time travel" threads appears here on ATS, I find myself making the statement that any attempt to time travel, especially in a backwards direction, is absolutely positively PROHIBITED by nature itself.

No if, and or buts ... utterly and completely PROHIBITED.


Yeah, we better tell LANL. They haven't gotten the memo yet.


I'm sure that the paper you referenced makes fascinating reading and is absolutely full of interesting science/physics ... however, a simpler and more intuitive reason for my stating that (backwards) time travel would be vehemently opposed by nature is for the crucial fact that the inherent and unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics/theory and especially the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, would come crashing down in a major fail.

[edit on 29/6/10 by tauristercus]


Wait...before i respond, did you just refute a link i posted without even bothering to click on it? You are so sure of your own reasoning and logic that you have no need to even consider something outside of it?

Wow, i think i have seen it all. I will leave you to your ego.


I'd appreciate that you didn't jump to such an unwarranted conclusion.

I did indeed examine the paper referenced by your link
"Through the Looking Glass with Phase Conjugation"
and unless I completely missed it, there was NO reference whatsoever to time travel in any form. Rather the paper you linked to, interesting as it may be to some, was one concerned entirely with optics, wave propagation, holography, phase-conjugate refelection ... essentially the topic was about light propagation and the modification of said propagation in interesting and novel ways.

So why you even linked such an unrelated paper to this thread is beyond me ... and furthermore explains why I effectively dismissed it as of no consequence to the current discussion of time travel.


[edit on 30/6/10 by tauristercus]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus


I'd appreciate that you didn't jump to such an unwarranted conclusion.

I did indeed examine the paper referenced by your link
"Through the Looking Glass with Phase Conjugation"
and unless I completely missed it, there was NO reference whatsoever to time travel in any form. Rather the paper you linked to, interesting as it may be to some, was one concerned entirely with optics, wave propagation, holography, phase-conjugate refelection ... essentially the topic was about light propagation and the modification of said propagation in interesting and novel ways.

So why you even linked such an unrelated paper to this thread is beyond me ... and furthermore explains why I effectively dismissed it as of no consequence to the current discussion of time travel.


[edit on 30/6/10 by tauristercus]


My apologies. I didn't completely jump to the conclusion. It was based on the wording of your post. I must have misunderstood.


However, what i linked to is not completely unrelated to this topic, and does support the notion that time travel is possible:



Optical phase conjugation is a technique for reversing both the direction of propagation and the overall phase factor of an incoming wave. More precisely, optical wave conjugation has been described as a non-linear optical process for generating an output polarization that radiates a time-reversal optical field with a spatial phase profile proportional to the complex conjugate of an input optical field.


www.freepatentsonline.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In my example, the object that is in motion, if there is no time, would either never be acted upon by an outside force, or it would always be acted upon by the outside force. Time is what differentiates the change in state. It is the measurement from one "frame of refrerence" to the next.






Maybe I didn't understand,but why does the object need time to change state?? It takes time,yes,but time is not needed to change state.I think that the outside force is what differentiates the change of state. We on the other hand find it usefull to determine how long it took to do this. I understand though how time is the measurement from one frame of refrerence to the next and agree


[edit on 1-7-2010 by alexlo]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth

The 1st dimension permits you to travel east or west. The 2nd allows you to travel north and south. The 3rd permits you to travel up, to the tenth floor. And the fourth, Time, allows the meeting to take place on schedule.


[edit on 30-6-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]


Thanks for your help and time
but I think this only allows for the meeting to take place on a certain point in time,on schedule.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by alexlo

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In my example, the object that is in motion, if there is no time, would either never be acted upon by an outside force, or it would always be acted upon by the outside force. Time is what differentiates the change in state. It is the measurement from one "frame of refrerence" to the next.






Maybe I didn't understand,but why does the object need time to change state?? It takes time,yes,but time is not needed to change state.I think that the outside force is what differentiates the change of state. We on the other hand find it usefull to determine how long it took to do this. I understand though how time is the measurement from one frame of refrerence to the next and agree


[edit on 1-7-2010 by alexlo]


What do you mean "time is not needed to change state"? Time, relative to whatever is changing state, is key. The essence of time is marking these changes in state. If something is, but is not more, then at one TIME it existed. The change in state defines the time scale.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
As a scientist i can inform you that time travel WORKS. Nicola Tesla made a huge breakthrough within it. Since i work with this subject i cannot say anything more though, everything will come in the right time.

If you havent noticed yet, we scientists and governments usually wait 10\30 years AFTER we actually invent something or get a 100% perfect result to inform the public.

One of the reasons is that the mainstream humans are referred as sheep.
The other reason is that we dont see the reason for informing them,if they cant use it,they dont need it.

A very weird choice of words in the article i must say.

Have a nice day.

Minneapolis Science Facility



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 11:11
 


Just last week someone I know received a call from someone that we suspect was actually callling from 2.5 days in the future.

In another example...all those Jihadi's that are being killed are traveling to the future. From what I can gather and after much contemplation, they allow themselves to be killed and are simply waiting at a specific location in space/time until the rest of the world arrives.

Fortunately for us all, the world won't be heading to that particular future, and when we get to the location in time and space where they are located according to a natural progression of time and as living people, only then do they actually die.

this bin Laden and Ayman couple, the reason you cannot find them is because they are currently located in the future and we are at the present. literally.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


What do you mean "time is not needed to change state"? Time, relative to whatever is changing state, is key. The essence of time is marking these changes in state. If something is, but is not more, then at one TIME it existed. The change in state defines the time scale.


I'm so sorry if I become annoying
it's just my will to understand and know. What I mean is that we only need time as a reference point to something that is,has or will happen. There are other forces that make the change of state happen,not time. Like the movement of the sun,is time responsible for that????? Time is something that exists only in our mind I think.

Thanks again



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 1-7-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexlo

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


What do you mean "time is not needed to change state"? Time, relative to whatever is changing state, is key. The essence of time is marking these changes in state. If something is, but is not more, then at one TIME it existed. The change in state defines the time scale.


I'm so sorry if I become annoying
it's just my will to understand and know. What I mean is that we only need time as a reference point to something that is,has or will happen. There are other forces that make the change of state happen,not time. Like the movement of the sun,is time responsible for that????? Time is something that exists only in our mind I think.

Thanks again


You do not become annoying.


Time is the implied result of the change of state, i suppose. We are where words fail me.
So i have to try to explain it where i cannot find words to do the job. Does that make sense?

Time is the measurement of a period between two changes of state. But time is not what is on your clock.

Lets say that for every action that happens in your reality, it represents 1 frame on the "Universal Wavefront" (the metaphorical term for the fabric of reality, spacetime). The "Universal Wavefront" would be like a computer screen, only far more extravagent and advanced.

Each frame that happens represents a unit of time. The change from one frame to the next represents the flow of time.

Now, i have heard people say that the Planck Length determines the "frame rate" of the universe, locked as "tau". Then i have heard others say that it is a misconstruction of the concept, which is far less abstract than being implied. I dunno...but if we could determine the "frame rate" of the universe, then we could apply such concepts as "time dilation" as an algorithm that only amdended the frame rate for relativity.

Does that make sense? Regardless, there is a frame rate, as there are changes in state.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Archirvion
 



Originally posted by Archirvion
As a scientist i can inform you that time travel WORKS. Nicola Tesla made a huge breakthrough within it. Since i work with this subject i cannot say anything more though, everything will come in the right time.

If you havent noticed yet, we scientists and governments usually wait 10\30 years AFTER we actually invent something or get a 100% perfect result to inform the public.

One of the reasons is that the mainstream humans are referred as sheep.
The other reason is that we dont see the reason for informing them,if they cant use it,they dont need it.



A very weird choice of words in the article i must say.

Have a nice day.

Minneapolis Science Facility

You're not a scientist. You are a disinformation agent. (more like a sick kid).

You could have at least used spell check.

Or do you think that us sheep don't know how to spell?

There is new hope for the mentally challenged, it is unfortunate however that we scientists and governments will not release it for another 30 years or so. If you wont use it, you don't need it. Tough luck........guess you'll just have to keep on taking that Thorazine......perhaps you could travel 30 years into the future and access the information since you have already figured out how to travel time.

Have a nice day.



[edit on 1-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
when people talk about the paradox of going backwards because of affecting the future etc, I don't get it (I'm not new to the subject) because for one in quantum mechanics people talk of "the observer" so if something happens to you(the time traveller) it does'nt happen to everyone or the world would be a pretty strange place. In fact even on the macro level our whole language system is based on from your perspective, like descriptively you would say the cat sat in front of the tree, knowing trees have no fronts, but anyway theoretical scientists also talk about multiple realities the theory that because we live in an infinite universe perhaps every possibility has happened, so if one was to go back in doing so it would surely only effect them they would create a new different line/reality/universe and so it would'nt effect their previous universe whatever, nothing would change but something would be added to the whole of existense/possibilities. Hope I've explained my thoughts all right I'm not very good at this writing melarky



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I don't think that actual "time travel" is possible, only the manipulation of the reactions between particles.

Traveling to the future is just moving ahead of the particles, mostly light, before they have time to react with each other, change states, and release photons that show us what is happening, i.e. aging.

They say time moves "slower" the closer you are to the speed of light only because the particles cannot react with other particles as much that would age them at the same rate during slower travel. Time is just the rate at which something react/ages. Clock move “slower” the close you are to the speed of light only because the electrons have a hard time matching the speed of electrons that need to be “bumped” in order to move the clock’s hand.

Electrons cannot bump other electrons and cause them to either gain or lose energy if they are either traveling at the same speed of one is traveling faster.

You can go into the "past" only if you can bend all the particles around doubling back on their selves to the point where the light that once past you has come back to sight.

That’s what I think,

What does anyone else say?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Time does not exist, however travelling to futures and the pasts is possible though its not called time travel because time does not exist.
solve that smart'y pants. And lets not forget relativity and causality, man must get up in the morning so he can go to work, so man invents a device called a clock and an excuse for a clock called time. Man hates his job it sucks so he thinks of a way to make it go faster to make the clock go faster, but since time does not exist he just cant turn the clock hands to desired time so he can get off work "because time does not exist" Man is always trapped in the present so he thinks a way to escape it, hence time travel to the future a better present. Now backwards time travel that is more tricky and crazy because traveling to the past is not a good idea the past sucks thats why the present and the future were invented.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Time does not exist, however travelling to futures and the pasts is possible though its not called time travel because time does not exist.
solve that smart'y pants. And lets not forget relativity and causality, man must get up in the morning so he can go to work, so man invents a device called a clock and an excuse for a clock called time. Man hates his job it sucks so he thinks of a way to make it go faster to make the clock go faster, but since time does not exist he just cant turn the clock hands to desired time so he can get off work "because time does not exist" Man is always trapped in the present so he thinks a way to escape it, hence time travel to the future a better present. Now backwards time travel that is more tricky and crazy because traveling to the past is not a good idea the past sucks thats why the present and the future were invented.


and yet, all of your words make for a statement that is untrue.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Hitotsumami
 


sorry i just need to correct ur statement slightly.

Its actually the opposite to what u said in ur post, the faster u go in relation to light speed the slower time goes for the traveller.

Its called time dilation. I have also posed somed theories about reverse time dilation which can work both ways, the slower you go the faster ur relative time but also consider this,

if it were possible what happens when we exceed light speed?

Now the theory of relativity states that is not possible but from what i have learnt about science over the years is that everytime we think we know something we later find out we are wrong, in many cases.

Now if ftl speed is possible what would occur in relation to time?

If time slows for the travellor the closer they get to light speed and then once we reach light speed time stops then what after that.

In ref to above just remember the light or photons are basically ageless, that particle is the same as the day it left its source whether it was 20min ago or 14 billion yrs the photon has not dies or aged it is in essence an ageless particle.

So what then if we could exceed light speed, what happens when we exceed it, what if time begins to reverse.

Black holes must exceed light speed as light is also drawn into them, the velocity would need to be faster for light to be effected. Why cant see past the event horizon?

What if past the horizon time as we kinow begons to reverse.

I have an upcoming post in regard to this with some sketches and good links that go further into this.

Look out for positive and reverse time dialtion and time travel. Will post soon.

Some food for thought though before i go:

consider this now it takes light 8 min to travel from the sun to the earth, now if i leave the earth for the sun at 3x light speed and blow it up and the sun is gone. Now i return at the same speed, it has only taken me 2.3 min each way, by the time i return the sun still looks fine from earth but after 3 minutes the sun goes dark.

For the sake of thjis example dont worry about supeernova etc.

Now have i extinguished the sun in the future or is it just an illusion.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



Sure why not here is also another untrue statement the "sun is yellow and hot". Or how about this going around a object called a black hole very fast, will send you to the future, of the origin that you left. Or if you want to go back in time you will have to either make a infinite parallel universes, or make this a holographic universe were everything is nothing but a cosmic computer, then you could go back in time to the exact still frame of data.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by 11:11
 




That is one of my favorite videos. It has been around a long time (before YouTube). But it still is something i watch occasionally so as to not forget it.

Time, in the explanation in that video, can be viewed as a 3 dimensional existence of which we only interact with 2 dimensions (moving in 1 direction on a line). If it were 3-d for us, we could choose to go to a time, just like we go to a place. We would only be confined by distance. a 4-d time would make distance a moot issue.
I don't think we interact with 2 dimensions of time. Quite frankly, I don't even think we interact with one.
1D=Back and Forth
2D=1D+Left And Right
3D=2D+Up and Down
4D=3D+Time and Anti-Time
We can only move forward in time.


[edit on 3-7-2010 by technical difficulties]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If you're vision in a hypothetical way is true, then what I am writing is written before I've even written it. Either case, I've got no control over it.

Anyway, suppose you're right, in that case we would probably be living in an ideal universe already. There would be instant bliss when the universe formed. There's no reason any nation need to suffer, unless humans in the future likes it this way. Another view is that this really is bliss and we're already in heaven. This is a meek look at our existence.

I believe we are somewhat in control of our own existence, but we're not doing a good job.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join